Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Seated Buddha
Seated Buddha[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 May 2015 at 00:42:53 (UTC)
- Reason
- High quality image of a golden Buddha sculpture.
- Articles in which this image appears
- Korean Buddhist sculpture, National Treasures of South Korea.
- FP category for this image
- Wikipedia:Featured_pictures/Artwork/Sculpture
- Creator
- Sculptor: Unknown, Photo: National Museum of Korea
- Support as nominator – Blorgy555 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Technically, this is great. However, it takes a blow to EV since our previous Korean statues (Gilt-bronze Maitreya in Meditation (National Treasure No. 83) and Gilt-bronze Maitreya in Meditation (National Treasure No. 78)) have articles on the statues themselves. As such, I don't think this has enough EV, since we already have two featured images in the class it's representing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't necessarily see a problem with there already being two featured images of Korean sculptures: In the sculpture category of featured pictures, I see at least four British sculptures, three from the past 100 years, two of which are by the same artist. Besides, this category seems too biased towards modern, Western sculpture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blorgy555 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is not that there are already two pictures of Korean sculptures. The problem is that there are already two featured pictures which are used to illustrate exactly the same thing as what this image ostensibly is meant to do (i.e. Korean Buddhist sculpture and National Treasures of South Korea). This means that it has little EV (= Encyclopedic Value); the image of this statue adds very little that the others don't. If there were an article on the statue, I wouldn't be opposing, as we cannot illustrate such a subject with pictures of other statues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your points are noted. Still, I think that this has good EV because it was made over a century later in a completely different time period from the other two (they were made in the Three Kingdoms Period while this one was made in the Unified Silla period), it is listed in a different portion of the Korean Buddhist sculpture page, which is quite long, from the other two, it portrays a different Buddha (Amitabha as opposed to Maitreya), it is done in a completely different style (Seated Buddha as opposed to Pensive Bodhisattva), it is only 12 cm tall as opposed to the other two which are both close to 1 metre tall and it is gold, rather than bronze. Also, the Korean Buddhist sculpture article does spend about half a paragraph on this sculpture. Blorgy555 (talk)
- If there's enough referencing for half a paragraph, there's probably enough referencing for a whole article. Notability shouldn't be a big issue; it is a national treasure of Korea, after all. As I said earlier, if this statue had its own article (and thus its EV wasn't compromised by the existence of two other FPs), I wouldn't be opposing; I'd be supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your points are noted. Still, I think that this has good EV because it was made over a century later in a completely different time period from the other two (they were made in the Three Kingdoms Period while this one was made in the Unified Silla period), it is listed in a different portion of the Korean Buddhist sculpture page, which is quite long, from the other two, it portrays a different Buddha (Amitabha as opposed to Maitreya), it is done in a completely different style (Seated Buddha as opposed to Pensive Bodhisattva), it is only 12 cm tall as opposed to the other two which are both close to 1 metre tall and it is gold, rather than bronze. Also, the Korean Buddhist sculpture article does spend about half a paragraph on this sculpture. Blorgy555 (talk)
- The problem is not that there are already two pictures of Korean sculptures. The problem is that there are already two featured pictures which are used to illustrate exactly the same thing as what this image ostensibly is meant to do (i.e. Korean Buddhist sculpture and National Treasures of South Korea). This means that it has little EV (= Encyclopedic Value); the image of this statue adds very little that the others don't. If there were an article on the statue, I wouldn't be opposing, as we cannot illustrate such a subject with pictures of other statues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't necessarily see a problem with there already being two featured images of Korean sculptures: In the sculpture category of featured pictures, I see at least four British sculptures, three from the past 100 years, two of which are by the same artist. Besides, this category seems too biased towards modern, Western sculpture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blorgy555 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, there is no article for this statute, so there is limited EV. Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 01:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)